LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  April 2015

ARSCLIST April 2015

Subject:

Re: SACD "surprise"

From:

"L. Hunter Kevil" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 5 Apr 2015 15:20:43 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (327 lines)

Not to start  a fight, I never got very far into Schuller's rather dogmatic
book years ago, given my doubts about the 'precision' of a score, no matter
how detailed. He seems to have taken as gospel Toscanini's quip about not
needing a performance tradition for Beethoven since he had the score.

I am now reading the book, Off the Record, by Neal Peres da Costa
(recommended.) He is very convincing that the piano scores of 19th century
composers do not give the full story on how to play their pieces.
Unannotated expressive devices such as playing one hand before the other,
arpeggiation, rubato, dotting, speeding u[p& slowing down, were all assumed
by many composers and their performers. Testimony from a recording of
Brahms playing his music and from his students shows that Brahms played in
a manner that would disqualify him from entering Julliard today. Listen to
the rather fascinating Arbiter CD, Behind the Notes: Brahms performed by
colleagues and pupils. There is also evidence of Brahms's 'Wagnerian'
tendencies as a conductor.

Hunter Kevil

On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Here's some more from Gunther Schuller and his advocacy for the score:
>
> "The difficulty in this discussion lies in the fact that no human being,
> no artist, no conductor can ever be totally objective in
> artistic/interpretive matters, or - to put it another way - can ever avoid
> being subjective to some extent. Clearly, the argument generally mounted by
> the opponents of textual fidelity - to wit, that someone is too 'objective'
> in his performance, too cold, too intellectual, too inexpressive, too
> reliant on the score - is itself false and specious, because even that
> alleged 'objectivity' is bound to incorporate a great or lesser degree of
> subjectivity....
>
> "We are, after all, what we are; and conductors are what they are. No
> conductor is purposely bad or purposely good. Every conductor is trying to
> evolve out of his talents the highest and most personal expression.
> Unfortunately, this often fails because (a) there is among conductor's
> views of themselves a sizable gap between perception and reality, that is ,
> between their perception of themselves and the reality as seen by others;
> and (b) conductors now increasingly try 'to be different' in order to carve
> out for themselves some special career niche....
>
> "This alarming trend can best be seen and heard in recordings...in that
> conductors, battling it out in the fiercely competitive recording market,
> have now learned that they will stand out, will be reviewed and discussed
> more readily, and will thus attract more attention the more they can
> interpret a work differently from the several dozen recordings of it that
> are already in the market place. This has become more than a trend in
> recent years; it has become an obsession and a specific skill, eagerly
> supported by managers and, of course, most record companies. At that point
> the composer's score becomes, alas, a total irrelevance, an annoying
> burden. In this perverse view of things, the music becomes fair game to be
> exploited for whatever career gains it can provide. Beyond the immediate
> negative effects of specific personal mis-, under-, or over-interpretations
> by these conductors, there is an unfortunate cumulative effect as well: the
> varied distinctive qualities and characteristics of the great symphonic
> masterpieces are submerged in one generalized, (ironically) depersonalized,
> generic, amorphous, androgynous performance style. Instead of the
> personality of the composer - and the true personal and special essence of
> the work in question - we get the personality of the conductor."
>
> That was published in 1997. The record companies are not so influential
> now. These days it looks like the same marketing is deployed more broadly
> to 'save classical music.'
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 10:41 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
>
> I'll say this about Boulez -- I love that he's so polarizing! Good for
> him! A big part of my disinterest in most orchestras and conductors today
> is that they either try to be everything to everyone, or they pander to try
> and "get the kids interested," or they are stuck in the mud of
> over-caution. None of that is interesting. Boulez is different and
> controversial. I like some of his recordings, do not like others. I even
> like that he's played the Legend card in France to amass a big pile of
> state funding for classical music (who has the power to do that here?). The
> very things that David Lewis mentioned -- the "ice cold" interpretations,
> the super-precision to certain scores, are liable to totally turn off
> American fans who, for instance, loved the Bernstein approach to music.
> There's nothing wrong with that! Alternative and even opposite approaches
> to music are great, and so is debate about it. What's not great is
> un-original thinking, over-caution and working so hard to be "inclusive"
> that one never plants their foot on decisive lines. Be bold or be bored!
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 10:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
>
>
> > BTW, the DAC2 is a substantial improvement on the DAC1, various versions
> of which I've owned since
> > it came out over ten years ago. Even the analog path is better. Still, I
> hear a difference with it
> > between Toslink and coax from the same Redbook source. Always have. I
> know, I know.... The async
> > USB is also audibly better than with the standard driver, whatever the
> data rate. It was such an
> > impressive upgrade that I splurged on their new amp. It replaces a
> Bryston, which is no toy. The
> > combo is highly revealing, yet not annoyingly so, as there often is a
> tradeoff between
> > transparency and musicality. I find it correct for whichever hat I'm
> wearing, mixer or
> > music-lover.
> >
> > Another aside, regarding Boulez. I don't dismiss the work of such a
> sophisticated and accomplished
> > musician, who has gained the respect of some of the most demanding
> orchestras out there. It can be
> > instructive to hear his way with music. His old Debussy series was
> praised for its objectivity and
> > scrupulous attention to detail, and is still valuable for it. Similarly
> his Mahler, yet it needn't
> > displace Barbirolli, et al. Just as with audio arts, there is no one
> correct way, and we don't
> > always see the value in something until time gives us perspective.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> > Of Tom Fine
> > Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 8:49 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
> >
> > Hi John:
> >
> > I think what you're hearing with 96k is the 24-bit word length. I am not
> convinced that the
> > super-high sampling rates capture anything audible above what 44.1 or
> 48k capture, but I do think
> > that the Nyquist filtering and other factors make the audible top end
> sound better. However, many
> > DACs up-sample 44.1k before filtering and converting anyway. For
> instance, the Benchmark design,
> > of which there are many variants, up-samples everything to three hundred
> and something kiloHertz,
> > re-clocking so as to strip out jitter, then converts to analog.
> >
> > Here's a "white paper" about Benchmark's DAC1 approach:
> >
> http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/white-papers/13127453-asynchronous-upsampling-to-110-khz
> >
> > For the DAC2 series, the describe the "improved" system this way:
> > -------------------------------------------
> > UltraLock2™ Jitter Attenuation System
> >
> > UltraLock2™ is an improved version of the UltraLock™ system used in the
> DAC1 and ADC1 product
> > families. DSP processing is 32-bits, DSP headroom is 3.5 dB, sample rate
> is 211 kHz, and
> > jitter-induced distortion and noise is at least 140 dB below the level
> of the music - well below
> > the threshold of hearing. Benchmark's UltraLock2™ system eliminates all
> audible jitter artifacts.
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> > Up-sampling and over-sampling DAC designs have been around for a long
> time, but I do think modern
> > designs are more sophisticated in how they strip out jitter from the
> source. The consumer high-end
> > designers first got the jitter-rejection religion, especially when they
> started recognizing
> > consumer demand for USB interfaces (USB is notorious for jitter due to
> inconsistent clocking built
> > into typical computer CPUs). Companies like Benchmark and Mytek and
> Lynx, which have feet in both
> > consumer and pro audio, have put out well-reviewed and good-sounding, to
> my ears, jitter-rejecting
> > products in recent times. The other focus where I think some strides
> have been made recently is
> > the analog stage after conversion, there are some super-quiet and
> near-transparent designs out
> > there now. A modern digital system should operate so quietly that it
> essentially has no audible
> > noise floor in even a quiet real-world room.
> >
> > A simple test would be to convert some well-known analog material at
> 96/16 and 48/16 and see if
> > you hear a difference. Then 96/24 and 48/24, and then compare the
> 24-bits to the 16-bits. I think
> > that's where you'll hear the differences.
> >
> > To my ears, 24-bit makes a difference, especially with "air and space"
> in something like an
> > orchestral recording. Just transferring in 24-bit makes a difference, if
> you've got a good
> > dither-down conversion system to get to a CD master.
> >
> > -- Tom Fine
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
> >
> >
> >> CORRECTION.  When I said "catching a whole octave above 48 kHz in
> >> frequency," I meant "catching a whole octave in frequency above what is
> >> captured by a 48 kHz sampling rate."  Sorry about that.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:38 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks for posting the NY Times Boulez article, Tom, which could have
> been
> >>> entitled "A bunch of famous musicians sitting around kissing up to
> Pierre
> >>> Boulez."  They remark how "influential" (i.e, famous) he is.  That he
> is.
> >>> Does that make him a great conductor? Nope.  I loved the Gunther
> Schiller
> >>> quote.  Obviously, Boulez has occasionally succeeded with a piece of
> >>> music.  Like they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  And
> many
> >>> great orchestras could occasionally deliver a great performance even
> while
> >>> ignoring a monkey on the podium.
> >>>
> >>> If DGG digital recordings had max resolution of 48 kHz, as you know
> that
> >>> is not an appreciable difference from 44.1 kHz.  The difference in
> >>> frequencies (pitches) those sampling rates will capture is the
> difference
> >>> between 22,500 and 24,000 Hz.  Way up there, that is a difference of
> only a
> >>> note or two (think extended piano keyboard).  I have never been able to
> >>> hear the slightest difference between a recording at 44.1 kHz and one
> at 48
> >>> kHz.  Recording at 96 kHz is a whole 'nother thing, catching a whole
> octave
> >>> above 48 kHz in frequency, but also seemingly able to capture more
> detail
> >>> based on double the number of samples.  Or maybe I should say capture
> the
> >>> detail with greater accuracy.
> >>>
> >>> Since we routinely make hi-def dubs (at least 96/24) from analog master
> >>> tapes these days that can sound really great, I have to wonder if, all
> else
> >>> being equal, those results will outshine an original digital recording
> made
> >>> at only 48 kHz.
> >>>
> >>> I am another one who has never felt that your average DGG orchestral
> >>> recording captured a lot of the sheer excitement of the sound of a
> great
> >>> symphony orchestra.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Mark:
> >>>>
> >>>> So from what you're saying, I gather that the maximum resolution of
> that
> >>>> Boulez/CSO master would be 48/24?
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Tom Fine
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Donahue" <
> [log in to unmask]
> >>>> >
> >>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 6:13 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Tom Fine <
> [log in to unmask]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  I can't recall if it was Yamaha or Studer digital consoles, but I
> think
> >>>>>> you are correct in your descriptions of "4D". being a true DDD
> system in
> >>>>>> that the last time anything was analog was when the mic plugged
> into the
> >>>>>> console and the mic preamp went to a ADC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tom,
> >>>>> The DG 4D system was comprised of a stagebox containing custom
> remote mic
> >>>>> preamps and Yamaha converters that connected digitally at 24
> >>>>> bits/44.1/48k
> >>>>> to an RTW bit splitter that allowed them to record 24 bit 16 track
> on a
> >>>>> Sony3324. The signal was also distributed to the input of a pair of
> >>>>> Yamaha
> >>>>> DMC-1000 digital consoles.  The normal orchestral kit that I would
> see
> >>>>> here
> >>>>> in the states was a pair or three stage boxes with a pair of
> machines for
> >>>>> 32 track recording. It was basically modular and could be scaled for
> the
> >>>>> job.
> >>>>> All the best,
> >>>>> -mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager